Sunday, June 25, 2006
The war on the war, part II
Being on vacation in China, I am both twelve hours off the news cycle and generally out-of-touch. Damn. I've missed out on the heady bashing of the coastal papers, particularly the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. On the off chance that you don't already rigorously inspect Power Line for the latest on the war of the mainstream media against America's war, read this (a link-rich summary of Hugh Hewitt's coverage of the NYT's leak), this (a discussion of Patterico's decision to cancel his subscription to the LAT), and this (a link to an Ace-of-Spades post that argues that the national media is holding American national security hostage to its political agenda). Here's the key graf from the Ace's post, much worth reading in its entirety (warning: "bad" words):
The left continues to undermine national security in the most despicable, cynical way. I'm quite sure the reasonable liberals at the NYT and WaPo know full well that programs like this are absolutely vital, and their secrecy is likewise vital. However, they have made the most anti-American and evil sort of decision: While tools like this are vital for saving American lives, they will not permit any Republican President to use them. Only Democratic Presidents are permitted to employ the full panoply of powers for protecting American lives.
It's blackmail, pure and simple. Either let a Democrat into the White House, or we will continue to sabotage American security and, in effect, kill Americans. We will keep secrets when a Democrat is in office, but not a Republican. So we offer the American people a choice: Let the politicians we favor run the country, or we will help Al Qaeda murder you.
This seems over the top, until you consider Cassandra's work on this blog over the last few days (scroll down). The question is whether it is calculated, or simply a reflection of the startlingly narrow ideological circles in which most national journalists seem to travel. My own opinion is that most of the mainstream media, with famous exceptions, is less than entirely aware that its coverage of the Bush administration's clandestine operations has differed so dramatically from its coverage during the Clinton administration. Also, the press does not publish in a vacuum -- it responds to stimuli from the chattering classes (the friends and social peers of reporters and editors, primarily), and partisan spin. It may be treating Bush harsher than Clinton on matters of clandestine operations because the Republicans, when they were in opposition, complained about different things than the Democrats are today. The press did devote a lot of coverage to the chief Republican complaints about Clinton, which related to his personal morality.
One might well make the point that war is different -- and it is -- but the Republicans who went after Clinton did create a political climate in which it was very difficult for him to retaliate against al Qaeda aggressively for fear he would be attacked -- by Republicans, we should remember -- for "wagging the dog." This was more removed than directly revealing American secrets, but there is no question that the impeachment was a deliberate attempt to weaken Clinton, and that weakening Clinton constrained the administration's options in responding to the 1998 African embassy bombings in particular. Clinton still might not have dealt with al Qaeda effectively -- his palpable fear of casualties after Mogadishu seemed to haunt him -- but the Whitewater investigation and related political context insured that he could not.
Back to the present. Consider particularly Ace's proposal to sanction any government official who speaks to an employee of the New York Times about any classified matter. I find it hard to believe that there would be anything unconstitutional about such a policy, even if it would offend the purists in the "profession" of journalism.
Finally, read Michael Ledeen's brief note at the Corner, in which he compares the fascination of the Washington press corps for classified documents that embarrass the President to its complete indifference toward classified documents that might embarrass his opponents.
2 Comments:
By 
Sissy Willis, at
Sun Jun 25, 08:13:00 PM:
It's one thing to cancel one's subscription to the LA Times, but how about my sister's sacrifice? Today for the first time ever she refused to buy the NYT, foregoing her lifelong addiction to the biweekly Acrostic:
"I shall never buy the New York Times again"
By Sissy Willis, at
Sun Jun 25, 08:14:00 PM:
